Sunday, July 31, 2011

After intensively studying Israel for some time now, I believe the problem that it presents to itself, to the Palestinians and to the world can be captured simply. Exceptionalism (the "we are different and superior" idea) combined with power is dangerous and if unchecked leads to disaster. What makes the case of Israel so instructive is that it is a tiny state that would normally be almost un-noticed in the affairs of the world but for the invincible shield of a super-power that is obedient to its wishes.

If you make special claims for your own, it can be harmless enough and it is certainly a human characteristic. In fact, it is a necessity. We all do this as individuals and with our families.

But when the group becomes larger, goes beyond the family to become tribal, then conflict begins with other groups and tribalism takes over. This has been seen in Europe for centuries and is seen in Africa and Asia today. It causes slaughter but the damage is contained unless it breaks out into catastrophes of opposing alliances as was the case in the world wars of the 20th century.

For the Jews, exceptionalism was reinforced by exceptionally strict containment with their numbers small and under constant threat from the larger non-Jewish populations in which they lived. In fact, it was very rugged exceptionalism that kept Judaism going after it stopped being a proselytizing religion with the advent of Christianity.

Jews had no choice but to withdraw when confronted. Exceptionalism was contained and reinforced by powerlessness.

Enter Zionism and the cataclysm of World War II.

Sympathy for the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis is a consequence of centuries of prejudice and oppression. It provided the magic key to the establishment of a Jewish state and its perpetuation.

The worldwide sympathy for the Jews allowed Zionists to commit an appalling act of ethnic cleansing that continues today. People from foreign lands took the land away from those living in Palestine in a blatant act of aggression based only on a mythology that the invaders brought with them but, most importantly, shared with the Christian world. If not for this shared mythology, the Zionist project would have been seen for the preposterous thing it truly is. The Arab Palestinians, being an alien people to the West, the suspicious other to both Europeans and Americans had no standing from which to make a plea for justice.

Though Palestine was certainly not a land without a people, it might as well have been for Zionists and Christians.

The struggling Yishuv suddenly made a slam dunk.

Far from presenting the constraint of a competing tribe, the Arab Palestinians as a rural agricultural people provided no effective resistance against the Zionist project. The history of Israel shows exceptionalism with unrestricted power and in that sense is no different from the rise of National Socialism until it was checked by the allied response to the adventurism of Hitler.

People fail to realize that appeasement, a word that we now despise because of its connection to the British response to Nazi Germany, has been on display by the United States in regard to Israel for decades.

The results are the same - ever more audacious moves by the appeased as they become more confirmed in their superiority and right to do as they please. What we have to ask ourselves is how the inevitable tragedy will play out.

The world does not permit exceptionalism unlimited reach because it is offensive to the universal sense of justice and the now common acceptance of human equality.

Israel has been different only because it has been undertaken by a people toward whom the world has felt a debt. It has played this hand repeatedly holding high the club of anti-Semitism. This is why Israel has been allowed such a long historical leash without effective counteraction. Otherwise it is only the old story of a territorial grab, unusual only in that those doing the grabbing were dropped into their target area from distant places.

The question for the rest of the world is if there is any way to avoid tragedy for Israel. This is a question only America can answer, because it holds the key to change in the form of the transcontinental life support that keeps the Israeli pot of extremism on course to self-destruct. Will the U.S. extend the leash to Israel to the point where it destroys itself from both internal contradictions and an historic split within Judaism that will see a rejection of the country that claims to be its child?

Regardless of what the Palestinians do, this is only a matter of time.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Here is an excerpt from an account of the unilateral reduction in the area within which Gaza fishermen can catch fish. The fishing restrictions are completely at the whim of Israel.

During the Oslo Accords, specifically under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of 1994, representatives of Palestine agreed to 20 nautical miles for fishing access. In 2002 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan empowered Catherine Bertini to negotiate with Israel on key issues regarding the humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and a 12 nautical mile fishing limit was agreed upon. In June 2006, following the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit near the crossing of Kerem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), the navy imposed a complete sea blockade for several months. When the complete blockade was finally lifted, Palestinian fishermen found that a 6 nautical mile limit was being enforced. When Hamas gained political control of the Gaza Strip, the limit was reduced to 3 nautical miles. During the massive assault on the Strip in 2008-2009, a complete blockade was again declared. After Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli army began imposing a 1.5 - 2 nautical miles (PCHR: 2010).

The fishing community is often similarly targeted as the farmers in the 'buffer zone' and the fishing limit is enforced with comparable aggression, with boats shot at or rammed as near as 2nm to the Gazan coast by Israeli gunboats.

Remember that this is only one aspect of Palestinian life that is subject to Israel's dictates. The Palestinians in the West Bank have no law but that of the Israeli Defense Forces and live in all respects subject to their occupiers. Those who live in Gaza are under siege and subject to military attack at any time with no defense against it - even as the United States pours more weapons and money into Israel for "the right to defend itself"

Sunday, July 17, 2011

A few months ago I read about the resolution of the United Methodist Church at their general conference in the year 2000, formally calling for the end of the Israeli occupation.

This took me by surprise. In the eleven years since, though I have seen many synagogues with "We Stand with Israel" prominently on display for the public, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of the Methodist Church standing against the occupation. As we all know from hearing our current president, lofty words are easily spoken without any action to back them up.

Because I was raised in a Methodist family (my father was ordained and his career was in church administration), I thought I would take advantage of my background and investigate the situation locally.

First, I composed a letter to the largest Methodist congregation in the area. In my letter, I suggested that, in light of the national church position, even the smallest act of recognition of a great wrong would be positive - perhaps just mentioning the Palestinians from the pulpit.

A few weeks went by with no response. I called the church office and nobody had seen the letter.

So I sent the same letter in again, only this time addressing it to the pastor.

A few weeks went by with no response. I called the pastor and left a phone message asking if the letter had been received.

No response.

So, I put on my Sunday best and went to church for the first time in decades. I knew that it is traditional for the pastor to greet the congregation after the service and saw that as an opportunity to meet the pastor in person. During the service, I discovered that there is a junior pastor as well.

After the service I waited in line, greeted the pastor, mentioned my name and asked if my letter had been received. "Yes", he said, "I intended to write you back, but you didn't provide a return address." Though I was tempted to exclaim, "WHAT!!??", I didn't intend to put him on the spot, I simply handed him my card and thanked him for the sermon. He told me that he would get in touch with me.

Upon return home, I composed a cover letter to the junior pastor, attached a copy of my original letter and emailed them.

Now, a week later, months since I wrote my first letter, there has been no response by phone, mail or email. I suspect there will never be any.

Why did I do this? I know from my years of association with the Methodist Church, back in the tumultuous Vietnam period, that it is politically timid, but I thought that possibly my close connection with Methodism would put anyone at ease in responding. If so many Jews are working so hard for justice, I can't sit doing nothing. If Palestinians have suffered over 60 years, couldn't I at least write a letter on their behalf to "my own people"?

A major reason I left the church in my young adulthood was that I felt it was pointless to listen to anodyne weekly lectures only to spend one's life ignoring the whole philosophical foundation of the religion, if not actively going against it. There are many good things the church does, but the risk factor in all of them is essentially nil. I'm an atheist, but whether or not one believes the accounts in the Bible, one must admire the stories (in the old or new testament) of people staking life itself for a cause.

Given the lack of response to my mild letter, you can easily imagine the intimidating power the charge of anti-Semitism, which Zionists are wont to use, would have if even the mildest support for the Palestinians were attempted.

I will close on a positive note, minor as it is. At the church service I noted with pleasure that there is now a cantor, by that very title. Things do change, but oh so slowly and cautiously. There are people in boiling water around the world. They suffer as most of us wait for the water to become tepid before putting a toe in.

Friday, July 15, 2011

It's impossible not to draw parallels with the struggle of the Palestinians, particularly in the behavior of racist whites in the South and the majority of Israelis. Just recently, an excellent piece appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that spoke of this parallel. I recommend it highly.

In reading the comments about the Haaretz article, I came across the following comment with the title "one half of the pro-civil-rights "whites" were Jews". Significantly, it received 25 thumbs up and only 4 thumbs down votes from readers.

"The article is great and completely correct - but since we're talking about Israel, tell the whole truth - half or more of the white pro-civil rights activists were Jews; Rabbi Heschel is the rabbi in the photo with Dr. King at Selma, and he quoted scripture to amazing effect in support of the civil rights movement and against the Vietnam War; two of the most famous whites killed in the struggle, Schwerner and Goodman, killed in Mississippi in the summer of 1964, were Jews - and there are tens of thousands more. Don't just write for Israelis about blacks and whites in the South; they'll say it has nothing to do with us. Tell the truth - the majority of American Jews supported the civil rights movement, and a completely disproportionate amount of the "white" activists were Jews whose historical consciousness of their identity made white racism abhorrent to them. There is nothing more Jewish than to oppose racist oppression - especially when it's our own people who are responsible for it."

Friday, July 8, 2011

Please bear with me and read what follows - I am frightened of the immediate danger of another war. You and every ordinary American are needed to act because in one critical area we have lost control of our Congress and because of this we may shortly be committed to a new war that Americans do not want.

Consider the following facts.

>Never in the history of the United States has there been any topic not open to debate in Congress until now - on one topic.

>Not one Democrat, not one Republican will raise any question on this topic. Even the Tea Party is silent. Senator Rand Paul made a single comment about the money involved and immediately went silent earlier this year.

>In a time of economic stress that questions even Social Security and Medicare, funding on this topic is off limits unless it is a vote to increase the amount granted.

>The NRA, AARP, agribusiness, the unions, the oil companies, the banking industry - the issues of all these groups are debated. On this one topic - no debate.

Standing alone, unquestioned, beyond debate, is Israel.

Yet, the height of irony, in the Israeli Knesset debate is completely open on policies that, once determined, the United States rubber-stamps without question.

The world's superpower is captive to the government of a tiny foreign country on the other side of the world. This is a recipe for disaster. You must act.

Not one of the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress will question any aspect of U.S. policy toward Israel. President Obama is extremely careful in what he says as well.

Instead, the Prime Minister of Israel dictates what he will and will not do - and U.S. support will be continued no matter what he does.

When Israel takes any action in foreign affairs that calls for debate, instead the U.S. House or Senate will within 24 hours have a resolution of support ready, often initiated by Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, with many eager co-sponsors not even needing to be asked to do so, because this is evidence at election time of support for Israel.

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to Congress. He could hardly get out a sentence without a standing ovation. Every member of Congress was eager to be seen cheering vigorously. The sight of this should have been disquieting at the least to anyone who loves democracy, as this was evidence that we the people are no longer running our Congress when it comes to Israel.

The funding that backers of Israel can put into election campaigns has muted all debate. Anyone who questions unlimited support for Israel knows he/she will be marked for defeat and the process is so effective that all are now silent and obedient. Standing always ready for use against legislators who raise questions is the accusation of anti-Semitism. Our legislators are completely intimidated.

In races for office, when the subject of Israel comes up there is a contest for who can speak more loudly in support of that tiny foreign country with a population about that of the Chicago area. In the last election for U.S. Representative from my district, Jan Schakowsky, a veteran supporter of Israel, was challenged by an even more fierce advocate, Joel Pollack. This is typical.

Israel is guaranteed over $3.5 billion minimum every year, the number one recipient of our foreign aide, yet a thriving economy. This is augmented by additional funds voted throughout the year by Congress. The base amount is pledged over ten year periods and has only increased each time it comes up for renewal. Our current economic crisis has had no effect on this. We can cut back spending on Americans but we can't do enough for Israelis.

This email is a plea to you to not maintain silence. Now is the time to make your voice heard for a very serious reason. In September the United Nations is likely to vote on a Palestinian state. Israel is determined, no matter what it takes, to defeat this effort.

There is good reason to believe that it may attack Iran to divert attention from the vote on Palestine, since it knows the U.S. would automatically come into the war on its side. Please read this excellent article for the evidence that this might happen.

Can we possibly get into another war just as we are eager to get out of Afghanistan? Yes, because of the subservience of Congress. Any impulsive act by Israel would automatically bring U.S. support. Congress has no idea how to act in relation to Israel other than in the robotic manner it does now. Israel has been continually threatening a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

It is imperative that you write your representatives and senators now. The Israel lobby relies on citizen indifference, ignorance and apathy so that the wealth and power of a relative few Americans can exert the control it does. You as an American citizen must make a showing of your independence and demand Congress do likewise. Let Congress know that you are watching them too. There is absolutely no topic that should be beyond debate in Congress. Most Americans never write (or email) their people in Congress. Please do so to demand that there must be debate and no automatic joining of an Israeli-initiated war with Iran.

Monday, July 4, 2011

We put humanity in top priority. Not my tribe, my race, or my people. That's why we went out against Zionism. A Zionist's values are all tribal, what's good for the Jews.

To this day, when people ask me about my identity, who are you? Are you this, are you that, are you brown, are you Moslem? I say I am a rootless cosmopolitan and very proud of the fact.

There used to be a saying - "Only dead fish float with the current. Live fish swim against it" When you swim against the current, you think for yourself. You don't accept what you are told.

These are quotes from three different people that you will hear in the remarkable Israeli-made one hour video, Matzpen, the story of the anti-Zionist group of that name that defied the overwhelming majority. Watch it.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

I always read what Uri Avnery writes. This remarkable Israeli was around when the British were still in Palestine. He was raised on a kibbutz and served in the Knesset. He is well qualified to speak with knowledge of Israel and does so in regular "letters" that he writes.

In the letter that I reproduce below is historical information necessary for an understanding of the meaning of the phrase "the Jewish state". I learned several things I did not know and I hope you will too.

Uri AvneryJune 18, 2011 Deny! Deny!

I AM fed up with all this nonsense about recognizing Israel as the“Jewish State”.

It is based on a collection of hollow phrases and vague definitions,devoid of any real content. It serves many different purposes, almostall of them malign.

Binyamin Netanyahu uses it as a trick to obstruct the establishment ofthe Palestinian state. This week he declared that the conflict just hasno solution. Why? Because the Palestinians do not agree to recognizeetc. etc.

Four rightist Members of the Knesset have just submitted a billempowering the government to refuse to register new NGOs and to dissolveexisting ones if they “deny the Jewish character of the state”.

This new bill is only one of a series designed to curtail the civilrights of Arab citizens, as well as those of leftists.

If the late Dr. Samuel Johnson were living in present-day Israel, hewould phrase his famous dictum about patriotism differently:“Recognition of the Jewish Character of the state is the last refuge ofa scoundrel.”

IN ISRAELI parlance, denying the “Jewish Character” of the state istantamount to the worst of all political felonies: to claim that Israelis a “State of all its Citizens”.

To a foreigner, this may sound a bit weird. In a democracy, the stateclearly belongs to all its citizens. Mention this in the United States,and you are stating the obvious. Mention this in Israel, and you aretreading dangerously close to treason. (So much for our much-vaunted“common” values”.)

As a matter of fact, Israel is indeed a state of all its citizens. Alladult Israeli citizens – and only they – have the right to vote for theKnesset. The Knesset appoints the government and determines the laws. Ithas enacted many laws declaring that Israel is a “Jewish and democraticstate”. In ten or in a hundred years, the Knesset could hoist the flagof Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam. In a democracy, it is the citizenswho are sovereign, not a verbal formula.

WHAT FORMULA? - one may well ask.

The courts favor the words “Jewish and democratic state”. But that isfar from being the only definition around.

The most widely used is just “Jewish State”. But that is not enough forNetanyahu and Co., who speak about “the nation-state of the Jewishpeople”, which has a nice 19th century ring. The “state of the Jewishpeople” is also quite popular.

The one thing that all these brand-names have in common is that they areperfectly imprecise. What does “Jewish” mean? A nationality, a religion,a tribe? Who are the “Jewish people”? Or, even more vague, the “Jewishnation”? Does this include the Congressmen who enact the laws of theUnited States? Or the cohorts of Jews who are in charge of US MiddleEast policy? Which country does the Jewish ambassador of the UK in TelAviv represent?

The courts have been wrestling with the question: where is the borderbetween “Jewish” and “democratic”? What does “democratic” mean in thiscontext? Can a “Jewish” state really be “democratic”, or, for thatmatter, can a “democratic” state really be “Jewish”? All the answersgiven by learned judges and renowned professors are contrived, or, as wesay in Hebrew, they “stand on chickens’ legs”.

LETS GO back to the beginning: the book written in German by TheodorHerzl, the founding father of Zionism, and published in 1896. He calledit “Der Judenstaat”.

Unfortunately, this is a typical German word that is untranslatable. Itis generally rendered in English as “The Jewish State” or “The State ofthe Jews”. Both are quite false. The nearest approximation would be “TheJewstate”.

If this sounds slightly anti-Semitic, this is not by accident. It maycome as a shock to many, but the word was not invented by Herzl. It wasfirst used by a Prussian nobleman with an impressive name - FriedrichAugust Ludwig von der Marwitz, - who died 23 years before Herzl was evenborn. He was a dedicated anti-Semite long before another German inventedthe term “anti-Semitism” as an expression of the healthy German spirit.

Marwitz, an ultra-conservative general, objected to the liberal reformsproposed at the time. In 1811 he warned that these reforms would turnPrussia into a “Judenstaat”, a Jewstate. He did not mean that Jews wereabout to become a majority in Prussia, God forbid, but that moneylendersand other shady Jewish dealers would corrupt the character of thecountry and wipe out the good old Prussian virtues.

Herzl himself did not dream of a state that belongs to all the Jews inthe world. Quite the contrary - his vision was that all real Jews wouldgo to the Judenstaat (whether in Argentina or Palestine, he had not yetdecided). They – and only they - would thenceforth remain “Jews”. Allthe others would become assimilated in their host nations and ceasealtogether to be Jews.

Far, far indeed from the notion of a “nation-state of the Jewish people”as envisioned by many of today’s Zionists, including those millions whodo not dream of immigrating to Israel.

WHEN I was a boy, I took part in dozens of demonstrations against theBritish government of Palestine. In all of them, we chanted in unison“Free immigration! Hebrew State!” I don’t remember a singledemonstration with the slogan “Jewish State”.

That was quite natural. Without anyone decreeing it, we made a cleardistinction between us Hebrew-speaking people in Palestine and the Jewsin the Diaspora. Some of us turned this into an ideology, but for mostpeople it was just a natural expression of reality: Hebrew agricultureand Jewish tradition, Hebrew underground and Jewish Religion, Hebrewkibbutz and Jewish Shtetl. Hebrew Yishuv (the new community in thecountry) and Jewish Diaspora. To be called a “Diaspora Jew” was theultimate insult.

For us this was not anti-Zionist by any means. Quite the contrary:Zionism wanted to create an old-new nation in Eretz Israel (as Palestineis called in Hebrew), and this nation was of course quite distinct fromthe Jews elsewhere. It was only the Holocaust, with its huge emotionalimpact, which changed the verbal rules.

So how did the formula “Jewish State” creep in? In 1917, in the middleof World War I, the British government issued the so-called BalfourDeclaration, which proclaimed that “His Majesty’s Government views withfavor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewishpeople…”

Every word was carefully chosen, after months of negotiations withZionist leaders. One of the main British objects was to win American andRussian Jews for the Allied cause. Revolutionary Russia was about to getout of the war, and the entry of isolationist America was essential.

(By the way, the British rejected the words “the turning of Palestineinto a national home for the Jewish people”, insisting on “in Palestine”– thus foreshadowing the partition of the country.)

IN 1947 the UN did decide to partition Palestine between its Arab andJewish populations. This said nothing about the character of the twofuture states – it just used the current definitions of the two warringparties. About 40% of the population in the territory allocated to the“Jewish” state was Arab.

The advocates of the “Jewish state” make much of the sentence in the“Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” (generallycalled the “Declaration of Independence”) which indeed includes thewords “Jewish State”. After quoting the UN resolution which called for aJewish and an Arab state, the declaration continues: “Accordingly we …on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations GeneralAssembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in EretzIsrael, to be known as the State of Israel.”

This sentence says nothing at all about the character of the new state,and the context is purely formal.

One of the paragraphs of the declaration (in its original Hebrewversion) speaks about the “Hebrew people”: “We extend our hands to allneighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodneighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation andmutual help with the independent Hebrew people in its land.” Thissentence is blatantly falsified in the official English translation,which changed the last words into “the sovereign Jewish people settledin its own land.”

As a matter of fact, it would have been quite impossible to reachagreement on any ideological formula, since the declaration was signedby the leaders of all factions, from the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox tothe Moscow-oriented Communist Party.

ANY TALK about the Jewish State leads inevitably to the question: Whatare the Jews – a nation or a religion?

Official Israeli doctrine says that “Jewish” is both a national and areligious definition. The Jewish collective, unlike any other, is bothnational and religious. With us, nation and religion are one and the same.

The only door of entry to this collective is religious. There is nonational door.

Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russian immigrants have come toIsrael under the Law of Return with their Jewish relatives. This law isvery broad. In order to attract the Jews, it allows even distantnon-Jewish relatives to come with them, including the spouse of thegrandchild of a Jew. Many of these non-Jews want to be Jews in order tobe considered full Israelis, but have tried in vain to be accepted.Under Israeli law, a Jew is a person “born to a Jewish mother orconverted, who has not adopted another religion”. This is a purelyreligious definition. Jewish religious law says that for this purpose,only the mother, not the father, counts.

It is extremely difficult to be converted in Israel. The rabbis demandthat the convert fulfill all 613 commandments of the Jewish religion –which only very few recognized Israelis do. But one cannot become anofficial member of the stipulated Jewish “nation” by any other door. Onebecomes a part of the American nation by accepting US citizenship.Nothing like that exists here.

We have an ongoing battle about this in Israel. Some of us want Israelto be an Israeli state, belonging to the Israeli people, indeed a “Stateof all its Citizens”. Some want to impose on us the religious lawsupposedly fixed by God for all times on Mount Sinai some 3200 yearsago, and abolish all contrary laws of the democratically electedKnesset. Many don’t want any change at all.

But how, in God’s name (sorry), does this concern the Palestinians? Orthe Icelanders, for that matter?

THE DEMAND that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the Jewish State”or as “the Nation-State of the Jewish people” is preposterous.

As the British would put it, it’s none of their bloody business. Itwould be tantamount to an intervention in the internal affairs ofanother country.

But a friend of mine has suggested a simple way out: the Knesset cansimply resolve to change the name of the state into something like “TheJewish Republic of Israel”, so that any peace agreement between Israeland the Arab State of Palestine will automatically include the demandedrecognition.

This would also bring Israel into line with the state it most resembles:“The Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, which came into being almost at thesame time, after the partition of India, after a gruesome mutualmassacre, after the creation of a huge refugee problem and with aperpetual border war in Kashmir. And the nuclear bomb, of course.

Many Israelis would be shocked by the comparison. What, us? Similar to atheocratic state? Are we getting closer to the Pakistani model andfurther from the American one?

This blog is directed to Americans by an American and dedicated to the Israeli human rights non-governmental-organizations that work tirelessly against the oppressive policy of the Israeli government regarding the Palestinians. They take seriously what the United States Pledge of Allegiance says - "with liberty and justice for all". They, not the government of Israel, deserve our respect and support.